https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77562
--- Comment #6 from programmerjake at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> Note I suspect this is due to "long a = 1;" being treated as a constexpr
> something like that now.
it is. In the original code I had, S has a c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77562
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note I suspect this is due to "long a = 1;" being treated as a constexpr
something like that now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77562
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77562
--- Comment #3 from programmerjake at gmail dot com ---
I would think that unrolling loops would be best left till after
gimplification.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77562
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||memory-hog
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77562
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
There is a dup of this bug somewhere already. Basically the front-end decides
it is going to "unroll" the loop for the constructors.
